C VAction

C VA

T h e Ne w s l et t er o f t he Ca rp in t e ri a Va l l e y A s s o c i a t i o n

Volume 42, No. 2 Fall 2005

Offshore Oil Drilling

For more than a century, Carpinterians have
firmly protested oil production off our coast. It started
when the world’s first offshore drilling rigs began
churning the waters off Carpinteria
and Summerland.
But on Aug. 8 this year, two
Carpinteria City Council members
broke ranks. They declined to add
their names to a letter urging more
environmental study before the federal
government can extend the life of 36
undeveloped federal oil leases off the
California central coast. Two of the
leases, owned by Venoco, are off
Carpinteria. The others are elsewhere
off the coasts of Santa Barbara, Ven-
tura, and San Luis Obispo counties.
The two Carpinteria dissenters are
Gregory Gandrud and Joe Armendariz. The letter
urged the California Coastal Commission to oppose
extending the leases without more information on
possible environmental damage. The contested leases
were initially granted from 1968 to 1984. The five-
year leases have been kept alive by federal exten-
sions. They are in federal waters, but the state com-
mission has authority under the federal Coastal Zone consistent with state coastal protection laws. Such a
Management Act to review and officially object to report was drafted and presented to the state Coastal
drilling and production permits if it finds them incon- Commission. The letter before the Carpinteria City
sistent with the California Coastal Plan. Council urged the commission to find the report in-
Gandrud was quoted in the Coastal View adequate.
News as saying the letter reflected re- The County Board of Supervisors, and the city
ports based on mumbo jumbo, not sci- councils of Santa Barbara and Goleta opposed the
ence. The issues are complex, but have federal environmental report by unanimous votes, or
been argued for many years and are not 15-0. Carpinteria joined the majority, but by a 3-2
unfathomable. It is indeed science that vote.
dissenters are demanding in the federal On Aug. 13, the Coastal Commission unani-
environmental reports. Armendariz was mously agreed that the federal impact report was in-
quoted as saying that the letter was “an adequate, largely because it reviewed impacts only of
effort by the Environmental Defense initial steps toward development. The Interior Depart-
Center (EDC) … to ask the City of ment had said that later reviews would cover subse-
Carpinteria to get on board their political quent development. The commission said it wanted
agenda, which is to basically force con- the entire process reviewed up front. In a separate but
sumers to buy alternative forms of en- directly related action, the next
ergy.” day the federal district court in
Although EDC did in fact How is it possible that two Oakland supported the commis-
initiate the request for complete sion’s position.
information and public disclo- of the five members of the Led by Carpinterians, California
sure, the lawsuit insisting on state coastal communities have his-
review of federal lease extension Carpinteria City Council torically and consistently op-
was actually brought by the state posed offshore oil activity, and
of California. EDC became one
of several interveners supporting
are so extraordinarily for good reason. We cherish
clean waterfronts for their eco-
the state. It had nothing to do nomic, natural and cultural val-
with forcing “consumers to buy disconnected from the
ues, none of which have been
alternative forms of energy.” It enhanced by the oil industry.
was about whether the state had community? How is it possible that two of
authority to review the federal the five members of the Carpin-
plan and determine whether it is consistent with state teria City Council are so extraordinarily disconnected
coastal policies. from the community? We can’t explain it. But we do
After both the federal district court and the fed- know that this action underscores the need for the
eral appeals court held for the state, the U. S. Interior community to maintain an ongoing dialog with our
Department agreed to prepare an environmental re- elected officials to ensure they clearly understand our
port to indicate whether the lease extensions would be positions and our vision for our community. !

See inside
for updates Water District Proceeds with Controversial Tank
on many Despite public protest over ballooning costs, the
important Carpinteria Valley Water District (CVWD) is proceeding
with its 3-million-gallon storage tank on Rancho Monte Ale-
issues! gre. On Aug. 24, the board awarded the tank contract to Un-
ion Engineering. The tank project, originally estimated at
$5.4 million in 2003, is now estimated to
cost $12 million. Not only has the cost
Inside this issue: changed, but CVWD’s rationale for the
tank has also changed. It was originally
promoted as necessary to store water dur-
Harley-Davidson ing the allegedly state-mandated cover-
2
Expansion Update ing of 2 district reservoirs. However, the
work on Carpinteria Reservoir is now
complete, and the Ortega project, due to
Torrey Pine Threatened 2 begin this month, will be completed long
before the tank project. As recently as
Here Comes Lagunitas July, CVWD Manager Charles Hamilton
2 was advancing a second rationale: the
(Look Out!!)
need for a place to “blend” district water,
which comes from 3 sources: wells, Ca-
Water Tank (cont.) 3 chuma, and State Water. Blending would
dilute the “disinfection byproducts” in
Cachuma water. However, in July the
Timm Co. Proposes homes
3 Santa Barbara News-Press published a statement by a local
along Franklin Creek engineer with the Drinking Water Division of the California
Dept. of Health Services, who doubted the tank would be
CVA Farm Tour
3 effective for this purpose. In his opinion, a tank high in the
Offers Insights foothills would be too far away from the beach, where the
district’s main system is located. “How they can mix the
“You Should Have
4 water, I don’t know. Maybe 10% of it will get blended,” he
Been Here Ten Years Ago.”
said.
Since then, the rationale for the tank has shifted to stor-
age. However, the 3 million gallons (9 acre feet) of storage
is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 999 acre
feet that CVWD will be obliged to supply annually to Ran-
cho Monte Alegre as part of the package deal
they struck. If ratepayers are upset about
footing the costs for the tank, they will be
even more irate as the conditions of the
Memorandum of Understanding between the
ranch’s owners and CVWD are played out
over the next few years. From the start, CVA
protested CVWD’s linking the tank to an-
nexation of the ranch. We unsuccessfully
sued the district in 2003, maintaining that the
project’s EIR did not address the growth-
inducing potential of guaranteeing a reliable
water supply to more than 2,000 acres of
Rancho Monte Alegre. Predictably, the ranch
sold shortly after securing this water, and
plans are now underway for developing its
49 legal parcels.
It is worth reiterating what we told LAFCO
in May of 2003, in a last-ditch effort to stop this project.
Based on the EIR and the Memorandum of Understanding
between the ranch (RMA) and CVWD, we prepared an
analysis of “Who Gets What.” With the ranch desperate for
water in order to develop, CVWD was in a strong negotiat-
(see “Water Tank” on pg. 3)
Page 2
Harley-Davidson
Expansion Update
CVA continues to follow the expansion plans for
the Santa Barbara Harley-Davidson project. Harley-
Davidson is proposing two story additions at both the
eastern and western ends of their existing one story
building. There would also be a café to serve about 20
people. Harley Davidson has just purchased some
property from Caltrans for additional parking.
After quite a few meetings between Harley-
Davidson and the Santa Barbara County Board of Ar-
chitectural Review, it was decided that the County
Planning Commission needs first to give approval
before the Board of Architectural Review reviews this
project.
After receiving many complaints from neighbors
and because of health and safety concerns, the County
succeeded in preventing Harley-Davidson from origi-
nating any more events at their Via Real location.
However, CVA along with the Padaro Association
and the Polo Club have been very concerned about
the ongoing violations of their as-built permit – which
does not permit outdoor sales nor more than 50% of
their property to be in sales. Currently the service op-
eration is next door at 3651 Via Real. Because of
these continuing violations a meeting was held with
1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal and his planning
staff to hear our concerns. Unfortunately, the County
currently has a policy of not issuing Notices of Viola-
tion while an applicant is in the process of submitting
a plan. These violations have been going on for 3
years and the neighbors at the west end of Carpinteria
Valley are very concerned about the noxious effects
caused by the traffic and noise generated by large
numbers of customized motorcycles. Discussions are
currently being held with County Counsel regarding
these ongoing violations. We were also able to pre-
sent our case for the need to have traffic and noise
studies conducted as part of the initial study.
After the traffic and noise studies are completed,
the planner Joddi Leipner will publish an initial study
around mid-November and will make the determina-
tion whether this project warrants a negative declara-
tion or an EIR. There will be a 30-day public review
period to review the adequacy of the document. It
should go to the Planning Commission late January or
early February.
Besides the ongoing violations and the aesthetic,
traffic, and noise concerns regarding the expansion,
CVA is very concerned about the precedent of allow-
ing a motorcycle dealership in a coastal Commercial
Highway (“CH”) zoning. The original application in
2002 stated that the business was “predominately ser-
vice to the traveling motorcyclist…with a minor sales
component.” This was the argument used in convinc-
ing the County Planning Department that for the first
time motorcycle sales might be allowed in a CH zon-
ing. Currently Harley-Davidson advertises itself as
the No. 1 used motorcycle dealership in California.
Obviously, sales seem to have become a much larger
part of the business, and their service consists of in-
creasing the decibel level of purchased motorcycles.
Any concerns or comments you have should be ad-
dressed to:
Joddi Leipner, Jleipner@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
568-2514
Copies can also be sent to:
Anne Almy, Anne@co.santa-barbara.ca.us !
Did you know...
Almost every activity in our community has some type
of effect on our ocean water quality: oil & gas from
cars, pesticides & fertilizers from our yards, dog drop-
pings and litter left to wash into our streams and
ocean. Do you really want to swim in all that???
C VA c t i o n Volume 42, No. 2
Torrey Pine Threatened
Efforts to save the 118-year-old Wardholme Torrey Pine located on Carpinteria Avenue from overdevel-
opment are underway. STOP (Save the Old Pine), an organization headed by Kathleen Reddington has been
formed, and a committee is being established to work toward turning the 2.28 acre parcel into a city park.
In June the property’s owner Scott Smigle and Peikert Group Architects proposed plans to the Carpinteria
Planning Commission for the site including 21 condominiums, three live/work units, and a 2,100 square foot
commercial building. The commissioners voiced concerns regarding potential traffic increases, the high den-
sity and large scale of the residential buildings, and the impact to the historic Torrey Pine. The commissioners
sent the project designers back to the drawing board. Commissioner Chuck McQuarry said, "I really think the
citizens should have more impact about what goes on here."
In August, Reddington presented a petition signed by nearly 900 local residents to the Carpinteria City
Council. The council was receptive and wished her well in her endeavor. Reddington and those area residents
who signed the petition believe the citizens of Carpinteria would be much better served if the area surrounding
the pine is preserved as open space and established as a city park honoring the landmark tree. Smigle says he's
"willing, open, and interested in what the community has to say about the future of this property." Fundraising
efforts are currently underway, and STOP is hoping to raise enough funds to buy the property. If you are inter-
ested in joining STOP or contributing, email CVA or send us the form on page 4 and we’ll put you in touch
with STOP. !
Here Comes Lagunitas (Look Out!!)
This fall or winter the City of Carpinteria is CVA notes several flaws with the traffic analysis
poised to approve the Lagunitas Mixed Use develop- that results in the stated 2390 trips per day (as if that
ment project. The project proposes to develop 74 isn’t bad enough) and CVA feels the real traffic im-
housing units and 145,000 square feet of office park pacts may be much worse. The traffic study is from
space on land historically in use by agriculture. The 1999, and we believe the traffic has gotten worse
City has recently completed a project study requested since then. (Data shows a 10% increase on the free-
by Cal/Trans. Still to be resolved by the City are se- way from 2000 to 2001, alone.) The City also ig-
lecting the specific mitigation (i.e. which infrastruc- nored comments from Caltrans regarding the mishan-
ture design) for local road traffic, and updating actual dling of the traffic data.
traffic data from 1999. The project is advertised as “live where you
work”, as a novel approach to reduce commuter traf-
CVA has been involved in the public process on
this project since 1999. The project is located on Via fic. The developers agree to market units to local em-
ployees for 75 days, but there is no long-term guaran-
Real near the Industrial Park in the eastern end of the
city. Many Carpinterians may not be familiar with tee that people will not want to move from Lagunitas
the project or its impacts. But those impacts will be (and keep their job near the project) or change jobs
felt by all Carpinterians. Let’s look at the balance (and still live at Lagunitas).
sheet and compare what the project promises to pro- CVA feels that Carpinteria doesn’t get enough
vide Carpinteria (as touted by city planners) and what out of this deal and the benefits do not outweigh the
price we will have to pay in terms of impacts. impacts in terms of increased traffic and loss of small
Purported Benefits town charm. If you share our concern about this los-
ing proposition, or if you want to learn more, contact
• Traffic circle infrastructure built at Via Real and us. (You can use the form on page 4 or email us at
Route 150 cva@silcom.com.) !
• Four traffic signals to get from one side of the
freeway to the other across the Bailard overhead
• Four residential units provided at below median
income level
• $250,000 to support the electric shuttle
• $250,000 for off-site affordable housing
Impacts
• 2390 additional car trips per day on the freeway
and local roads
• Loss of small town charm with new roadway
infrastructure and signalization
• Air pollution (Class I impact, as identified by
APCD)
• Loss of open agricultural land
• Inadequate project parking
Volume 42, No. 2 C VA c t i o n
Water Tank
(from page 1)
ing position. However, they and their lawyer appear to have let the ranch set all the
terms.
Rancho Monte Alegre gets:
• $450,000 for a 10-acre parcel created to include the least developable terrain
in the vicinity.
• The right to lease back 7 of these 10 acres for $1 per year per acre, since the
tank will only occupy 3 acres.
• $37,489 per year in exchange for leasing a 4.25-acre parcel to CVWD as a
“staging ground” for constructing the tank.
• The right to seek a lot line adjustment to acquire the 7 “surplus” acres back
from CVWD “for no additional consideration.”
• A 1.5 mile, 24-ft. wide road to more remote parcels, and a 70-foot x 18 ft.
bridge, built by CVWD. RMA will pay for these, but will have bypassed the
permitting hurdles and restrictions they would have faced as a private entity
seeking to construct this infrastructure.
• Two 200,000-gal. tanks for use by ranch residents only. Again, RMA will pay
for these, but will deed them back to CVWD, who will be responsible for their
maintenance.
• CVWD water: 999 AFY in a normal year; 1,067 in a drought year. Delivery
“guaranteed” to every parcel in the annexation area.
Carpinteria Valley Water District gets:
• A 3-million gallon storage tank (9AF in exchange for committing 999AFY in
a normal year, 1,067 in a drought year).
• Responsibility for building the 1.5 mile road to RMA’s more remote parcels,
involving blasting sandstone outcroppings, removing oak trees, and building
2,320 linear feet of concrete retaining walls, in some cases 16 feet high.
• Responsibility for installing a 70-foot bridge across Santa Monica Creek, for
enhanced access to RMA’s remote parcels.
• Responsibility for delivering water to these parcels.
• Responsibility for building two 200,000 gallon “upper tanks” for the use of
RMA only. RMA would pay initial costs, but would deed the tanks back to
CVWD, which would be responsible for their maintenance.
The public gets:
• To pay for the District costs associated with this project.
• To have less district water available. In a drought year, estimated allocation to
RMA is 97% of our State Water allocation (based on our allocation at the time
RMA was annexed, before any potential sales of State Water to other districts)
• Increased development, with its impacts on traffic, air quality, and views.
Recently, CVWD refused offers by state water officials to discuss alternative
to the tank. However, after CVA invited Dr. David Spath, Chief of the Division of
Drinking Water and Environmental Management, Calif. Dept. of Health Services,
to come down for a public forum, CVWD sent him a separate invitation. Currently,
the plan is for a jointly-hosted meeting on Tues., Nov. 15.
Meanwhile, CVWD has built the road to the tank site, and Union Engineering
reportedly began work on the tank in late September. On Sept. 21 CVA presented
CVWD with nearly 600 signatures on petitions demanding a moratorium on rate
increases, gathered by a grassroots network of concerned citizens. However, since
CVA Farm Tour Offers Insights
Participants attending CVA’s June 11 tour of local agriculture gained insight
into the role of farming in this valley, past and present. The group, which included
State Assemblyman Pedro Nava and First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal, toured
the Reiter Brothers’ organic strawberry farm at the former Parsons Airfield, the Bill
Horton avocado ranch, and the Brown family’s California Tropics.
Standing in the middle of 40 acres of strawberries, staff members at Reiter
Brothers explained the advantages of organic vs. non-organic farming, and let tour
participants taste the result—slightly smaller but tastier fruit. They explained that
the parcel at the eastern end of the Carpinteria Valley has a microclimate ideally
suited for this operation, distinctly different from the climate in Oxnard, where the
company has extensive berry fields. Early in the season, the Carpinteria fruit is sold
to local specialty groceries, while at the end of the season it is destined for jam. The
Reiter family has been in the berry business for three generations, with operations in
northern California and beyond. They are currently experimenting with blackberries
for the market. All too soon, it was time for the tour to move on to the Bill Horton
avocado ranch.
Bill Horton descends from the Bailards and the Franklins, who came to Carpin-
teria to farm shortly after the Civil War. His acreage north of Via Real near Bailard
Avenue has been in the family for generations. The tour group gathered on a ranch
road running between towering 60-year-old trees on one side and a newer orchard
on the other. Carl Stucky, member of the County Agricultural Advisory Board and
manager of the Horton Ranch, spoke to the group about avocado farming. He, too,
emphasized the uniqueness of the Carpinteria Valley in terms of soil and microcli-
Page 3
Timm Co. Proposes 25 New Homes
Between Linden Ave.
and Franklin Creek
A neighborhood group and, separately, the Carpinteria Creek Committee have
appealed City approval of a Timm Co. residential project to the Coastal Commis-
sion, requesting modification of the proposal. The Commission will hold a hearing
in a month or two to consider both appellants' objections. The developer has in-
cluded a required 50-ft setback (for structures) from Franklin Creek's top-of-bank,
in which vegetation must be limited to native trees and shrubs.
In addition to appeal issues, a Carpinteria Creeks Preservation Program
(adopted in 2004) includes a new policy focusing on Franklin Creek, which borders
the Timm development. It reads: The City "shall consider evaluation of feasibility"
of restoration of sloping earthen banks of Franklin Creek. The cement box-channel
was imposed after the 1969 flood.
Cement removal and restoration of a natural environment along the 200-ft pro-
ject's stretch of the creek (and a longer extent of Franklin Creek Park on the west)
are now subjects for discussion. The Carpinteria Creek Committee is initiating con-
sultation on feasibility of restoration among City officials, hydrologist-engineering
experts, and Flood Control staff. Possible positive results include cement removal
and restoration that increases flood capacity, therefore slowing storm flow, and a
small riparian forest corridor that would invite foraging birds and other wildlife.
CVA supports and thanks the Carpinteria Creek Committee for their efforts in
this and related issues. !
the next rate increase is not scheduled until next summer, CVWD’s attorney, Chip
Wullbrandt, termed them “moot.” Members of CVA and spokespersons of the citi-
zens’ network have been invited to meet with CVWD’s Budget & Finance Com-
mittee, but no date has been set. Between debts incurred from securing State Water
15 years ago and money borrowed for the various current projects, CVWD owes
close to $100 million—a staggering amount for a district this size. As board presi-
dent Fred Lemere said recently, there is “no secret magic wand” to bring money in;
“it has to come from the ratepayers.”
Increasing the public’s non-confidence in CVWD is the recent discovery that
the state did NOT require the covering of Carpinteria and Ortega Reservoirs, the
starting point for this whole mess. Jon Merkle of the California Environmental Pro-
tection Agency said in July that “We have not issued any orders to the CVWD for
any reason related to the quality of their drinking water… Nor has the Department
of Health Services told us that Carpinteria has a problem or is even approaching a
problem.” The two reservoir covering projects have already cost the district mil-
lions more than originally estimated.
Under pressure from CVA and other concerned citizens, CVWD has finally
acknowledged the glaring conflict of interest in having the same lawyer as the new
owners of Rancho Monte Alegre: Chip Wullbrandt of Price, Postel, and Parma. In
late September CVWD hired a different attorney to handle its dealings with RMA,
while the ranch has done likewise for its dealings with CVWD. However, the fact
that Mr. Wullbrandt still represents RMA on “land use” issues and also represents
Montecito Water District is a bit too close for comfort for many observers. They
point to the “giveaway” by CVWD in the Memorandum of Understanding de-
scribed above. “If that’s Chip Wullbrandt looking out for the best interests of the
Carpinteria Water District BEFORE he was hired by Rancho Monte Alegre,” said
one observer, “it’s time for CVWD to wake up and get someone different for all
their transactions.”
A lot of this damage cannot be undone. But it’s still not too late to demand
accountability and openness from CVWD. If you agree with us that CVWD needs
to change its mode of operation, contact us so that together we can perform our
duties as citizens of the district. If we can genuinely work together with the district,
we may find some solutions. !
mate, making in ideal for agriculture. As he spoke, the Hortons’ dog, “shapely”
from eating fallen avocados, circulated among the crowd.
Traveling through private agricultural roads, the group regained Casitas Pass
Road near Lions Club Park, and continued east to California Tropics, where they
were welcomed by Jonathan Brown. After a lunch on the porch of the classic barn-
style packing house, the visitors heard more local ranching history. Brown de-
scribed how ancestors of both his parents were attracted to Carpinteria by its reputa-
tion as an ideal spot for agriculture, and how the land on which the present opera-
tion is located was owned first by one forebear and then another, starting in 1871.
The Brown family has agricultural records for the ranch that date back to 1917. An-
cestor Henry Fish had the Fish Seed Company, which shipped Carpinteria Lima
beans around the world in the early twentieth century. Other crops previously grown
on the present ranch include apricots, olives, lemons, oranges, limes and tomatoes.
California Tropics was formed by Rosemary Carton Brown and her children
in1973. Current crops include cherimoyas, sapotes, pineapple guavas, and passion
fruit. The cherimoyas are exported as far as Japan, where they are a great delicacy.
Not included in this year’s tour, but touched upon in CVA’s illustrated tour
guide were various organic vegetable operations: the Whitneys’ blueberries and to-
matoes, Tom Shepard’s salad greens, and the Coleman family’s organic vegetables.
Participants in the tour came away with a new appreciation for the long tradi-
tion of farming in Carpinteria, still alive and well, and essential to our identity as a
small beach town in an agricultural valley. !
Page 4 C VA c t i o n Volume 42, No. 2

Carpinteria Valley Association

P.O. Box 27, Carpinteria, CA 93014
Email: cva@silcom.com
Web: http://www.silcom.com/~cva/
The Carpinteria Valley Association (CVA) was
founded in 1964, and continues its mission to
preserve and enhance the rural beauty of the
Carpinteria Valley, especially its open field agri-
culture, and to maintain the charm of Carpinteria
and Summerland as small beach towns. CVA
strives to accomplish these goals by providing
education and advocacy on issues related to land
use, planning, and community development with
an emphasis on the natural resources and envi-
ronment of the Carpinteria Valley, Summerland,
and the surrounding region.
“You should have been
here ten years ago.”
A few years ago, singer/songwriter Jimmy Buffett related the following observation about
Key West, Florida:
“It seems every place I go to get away these days, somebody always says, ‘You should have
been here ten years ago.’ All these years later, there is still a soul to this place. There are those, of
course, who don’t see it and never will. They are focused on land development, get rich quick
schemes, and other carpetbagger ploys. We seem to spend a lot more time than we should have to
to keep these thieves and predators at bay, but that is life in the tropics.”
That is also life right here in Carpinteria. We do spend more time than we should have to
working to preserve the soul of this area. But what other choice do we have? Preserving and pro-
tecting the community we love is always worth the effort! This is why we invite you to work with
us toward this goal. Maybe one of the issues we discuss in this newsletter strikes a chord with
you, and you want to learn more or take action. Or maybe there is an issue that is important to you
that we don’t discuss here. In either case, use the form below or contact us by email to let us know
your thoughts.
We need to work together to make sure that ten years from now, we will not be saying “You
should have been here ten years ago.” !

Board of Directors:
Susan Allen
Vera Bensen
Anna Carrillo
Al Clark
Samantha Green
Bob Hansen
Dave Hill
Roxie Lapidus
Brian Marcontell
Jay Parker
Katie Roberts
Royce Stauffer
Mike Wondolowski
“On the other hand, once we’ve destroyed
Advisory Board: our environment, we needn’t be concerned
David Anderson about it any longer.”
Lyn Anderson
Christie Boyd
Gary Campopiano I want to join CVA!
Geri Campopiano ! I want to join CVA! I am enclosing $5 for my annual membership
(Our annual renewal date is June 1, so it’s time to renew if you haven’t yet this year!)
Mary Holzhauer
Note: Contributions to Carpinteria Valley Association are not deductible as a charitable donation for tax purposes.
Linda Krop
Bunny Lesh Additionally, I want to support the public education efforts of the Carpinteria Valley Foundation.
Enclosed is my donation:
Kathleen Lord ! $20 Individual ! $25 Family ! $50 Supporter ! $100 Benefactor ! Other: $ ________
Dave Morris Note: Contributions to Carpinteria Valley Foundation are deductible as charitable donations for tax purposes.

Trina Morris I am interested in the following issues:

Donnie Nair ! Santa Barbara County planning issues ! Preservation of historic Torrey Pine
Gary Neilsen ! Carpinteria City planning issues ! Open field agriculture issues
! City of Carpinteria General Plan ! Water issues
Ted Rhodes ! Venoco’s facility / general oil development & monitoring ! Affordable housing issues
Katie Roberts ! Use of lands owned by the Carpinteria School District ! Zoning enforcement
! Greenhouses ! Environmental impacts of develop-
Jan Robotham ! Rancho Monte Alegre ment (e.g., traffic, parking, air qual-
Carl Stucky ! Harley-Davidson expansion ity, biological issues, etc.)
Arturo Tello ! Lagunitas mixed-use development
! Specific development proposal: _______________________________________________________
Brian Trautwein
I want to help! I will help on:
! Technical analysis of environmental documents
! Attending public meetings
! Telephoning and/or mailing

eb! a/
! Database maintenance
w ! Website development and maintenance
n the /~cv
’re o .com Name: __________________________________________________________________
We silcom Address: ________________________________________________________________
w.
ww Email: ______________________________ Phone: _____________________________

Mail this form to us at: Carpinteria Valley Association

Than
ks!
On our website, you can find P.O. Box 27
a full-color version of this Carpinteria, CA 93014
newsletter, as well as past editions!